1997
DOI: 10.1080/07055900.1997.9649583
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of the 35‐km version of the Canadian regional forecast system

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The atmospheric forcing was produced by the Canadian operational regional finite element model prior to February 24, 1997 [Mailhot et al, 1997], and the Global Environmental Multiscale model thereafter [Côté et al, Figure 2. Domain-averaged forcing over the December 1, 1996, to March 31, 1998, simulation period.…”
Section: Experimental Settingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The atmospheric forcing was produced by the Canadian operational regional finite element model prior to February 24, 1997 [Mailhot et al, 1997], and the Global Environmental Multiscale model thereafter [Côté et al, Figure 2. Domain-averaged forcing over the December 1, 1996, to March 31, 1998, simulation period.…”
Section: Experimental Settingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After the period of the present study, fully continuous Eta cycling in the EDAS (including soil moisture with no nudging) began on June 3, 1998, along with extension from two to four soil layers. In GEM, soil moisture is specified using a pseudoanalysis which is inferred from 6-hour surface dew point temperature forecast errors which are correlated to adjustments to be made to the previous soil moisture analysis [Mailhot et al, 1997].…”
Section: Data Assimilationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is possible because the sensitivity to short-range forecast errors projects primarily on the large-scale atmospheric structures (Thépaut and Courtier, 1991;Tanguay et al, 1995), especially at the beginning of the minimization procedure (Laroche and Gauthier, 1998). Thus, when the incremental principle is applied to sensitivity analysis, the forecast errors are evaluated at high resolution with the operational GEM model, which includes realistic non-linear physical parametrizations (Mailhot et al, 1997), whereas the measure of the short-range forecast errors is approximated to allow the minimization to be performed at a lower resolution with simplified physics.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%